# Problem with file starting with @ **URL:** \ **Category:** v1: Troubleshooting (legacy)\ **Created:** [August 28, 2025, 5:13pm UTC](https://community.silverbullet.md/t/problem-with-file-starting-with/3097 "2025-08-28T17:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![mjf](https://community.silverbullet.md/user_avatar/community.silverbullet.md/mjf/32/654_2.png) [@mjf](https://community.silverbullet.md/u/mjf)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2025, 9:19am UTC](https://community.silverbullet.md/t/problem-with-file-starting-with/3097/6 "2025-08-29T09:19:44Z")
> [@MrMugame](#): > > It exists to not collide with the `@123` and `@L1C2` syntax when linking And these strings can stand standalone? I mean, if not (if these strings are alsays suffixed to something else, e.g. page name) then, as I stated somewhere else (cannot remember where atm.), we can easily allow the `@` etc. as leading characters, or even inside something given that last instance of them only will be treated specially, e.g. `@Page Name` will be OK, `@Page Name@` will also be OK (does not match some grammar like `@(\d+|L\d+(C\d+)?)$` or whatever it is, and also this could be allowed `@Page Name @Wow!` and `@Page Name@123` will be the only one that would yield `name = "@Page Name", pos = 123`, and for example `@Page Name@L5C10@123` would yield `name = "@Page Name@L5C10", pos = 123`. Or do I miss something important here? That way many rules could be relaxed, I think, and without (much) ambiguity and with only simple rules to comprehend and to follow. 🙂 * * * OK, OK, I know I contradict myself a little, because I would like to see leading `@` syntax for the (hopefuly) future [citations](https://community.silverbullet.md/t/ideas-on-citations/2999). But we can still support the rest of it. After all, we can also disallow `^@L?\d` as citation name (very minor issue comparing to than with the page naming). --- _[View the full topic](https://community.silverbullet.md/t/problem-with-file-starting-with/3097)._